Ageing Suggestion

[Mirascael]

I don't think so. As far as I know he still uses the EXP-system.

[Darkson]

Either games played, or peaking.

games played is a bad idea. Imagine a team (any race), and say the 1st aging trigger was at 10 games. Now depending on luck, deaths, injuries, etc, you could posssibly have 11 payers all with a MNG, just because they aged together.
People age at different rates (look at Thorny, he's 100 ), and I think any aging system has to have that random element in place.

[Darkson]

I don't think so. As far as I know he still uses the EXP-system.

Nope, as I said, he's removed aging altogether

[Mirascael]

I don't think so. As far as I know he still uses the EXP-system.

Nope, as I said, he's removed aging altogether

No Aging method will be used.

Gosh, you're right! That's some news indeed!
Well, still much better then the current LRB-"ageing"

[Darkson]

As of today, all aging systems are being removed from
both the MBBL and MBBL2. If at some point in the
future a new method of aging that is not skill based
comes about as experimental, we will test that.

Galak posted to the MBBL and MBBL2 yahoo groups on the 15/04/03

[Toby]

Honestly, thats my oppinion as well.

To limit team power, increase the Starplayer Points gaps. For example 10,20,40,80,160,320 (just an example)

To cause more player turnover, make it easier to retire (50% cost to replace a player with one of the same type after the game). Award more Starplayer Points to make it easier to level (back) up (Throw Teammate, Fouls, Pushed of Pitch as a normal Block).

[Darkson]

Toby, on one hand you want to slow player progression by upping the number of SPP's needed for a skill, and on the other hand you want to give out more SPP's.

Do you not find these two statements contradictory?

[Toby]

no. Its easy. When you have to retire a player, it is a reset.

Gaining skills is fun.

So if your 1 Storm Vermin dies, grr, ok replace him in a couple of games he will be the same. More or less.
Maybe you get a double this time!

However, when players get to manny skills, the game gets boring because plays are to sucessful.
("every 2 turns a Touchdown").

So my point is, to encourage player turn over, make it easier to let a player go. It is already ok for scorers, because 16 is easy to reach and 2 skills is a nice level to play. Its hard for linemen and blitzers, because a rookie lineman doesn't collect points because the opponets already have skills.

[Darkson]

Toby, I really don't follow your reasoning on this one.

Point 1:-

To limit team power, increase the Starplayer Points gaps. For example 10,20,40,80,160,320 (just an example)

So you want to make it harder to go up in levels. OK, I understand that.

However, point 2:-

Award more Starplayer Points to make it easier to level (back) up (Throw Teammate, Fouls, Pushed of Pitch as a normal Block).

So you're giving out more SPP's


So all you're suggesting is making the numbers different, which would actualy mean teams would plateau at a higher TR than they do now

[Jerhod]

OK what about THIS:

Ageing (Result) Roll #1 = "Age 1" = -1AV
Ageing (Result) Roll #2 = "Age 2" = -1AV & -1MA
Ageing (Result) Roll #3 = "Age 3" = -1AV & -1MA & +1NI

No more Ageing after "Age 3". Further Ageing can be ignored.

I think that it's an interesting proposal, but I also think that I'm against it. One aspect of this proposal is that it affects different teams to different degrees. For example, a Longbeard with -1 AV is still a fine Longbeard; a Skaven or Wood Elf with -1 AV becomes much more of a liability. I guess that this does, to a certain extent, balance out with the -1 M: a Longbeard with -1 MA becomes much less useful than a Skaven or Wood Elf with -1 MA...

The core problem as I see it is that by the third aging roll the player in question is a complete liability; fielding just about any player with -3 AV and -2 MA isn't going to be very useful in the long run. I guess that this does motivate coaches to fire the old and hire the new, so it does have a positive spin. However, under the current aging system it's possible to age three times and still be useful: a niggling injury, a -1 MA, and a -1 AV on a Lineman with Block, Guard, and Tackle still leaves me with someone I'd like on my team. The older system, while random, does seem more forgiving in this regard, and if the criticism is that the current aging system is too brutal then this proposal doesn't seem to solve that problem. Instead, it makes it worse.

Best,
-Jerhod-

[dakkakhan]

The fear of the EXP System is unfounded. Each player starts with 0 EXP. After the end of game one a d6 is rolled for each player and if it exceeds 0 that player gains 1 EXP. This continues after each game played, the catch is after game 2 some players will roll a 1 and stay at 1 EXP, while others will roll 2+ and gain EXP #2. The end result is that no one has to worry about "aging" until after Game 7 where if the player rolled 1,2,3,4,5,6 for example. At this point if they roll a 1 they make an injury roll. If they roll a 6 they gain an EXP point.

Our Commish also gave us an SPP for each point of EXP that we earned, so once it's activated it sticks with 1 BAD, 6 GOOD Rule! For this reason, you could get 10 players to age all at the same time, but the possibilities are remote, I'll leave the % to number crunchers like Zombie and Galak.

It surprises me Galak does not use it, since the only real argument against it has been the rolls and that was automated by our Commish so it would be great for Online BB.

[Darkson]

The MBBL did use it for a season, but dropped it at the start of this, from coach feedback and outside influences.

I think it's a shame, as I thought the system had merit, and with futher testing might have been a winner, but I guess after rolling 100's of dice a game, rolling upto 16 dice in the post game was just to much for some people

[Toby]

Darkson, simple.

I want it EASIER to retire a player. Why is it difficult to retire a player ?

A. Because you need money to buy a new one.
B. Because the old one had Starplayer Points.

Why should players be retired?

A. Because it screws the game if to many players are to powerful.
B. Because they become unreliable.

Giving more SPP to non Scorers makes it easier to get back to 16 SPP.
Lifting the 4 or 5th skill makes sure players with 5 or more skills are rare.

I cant understand why you dont understand the logic.
More retiering, but quicker "restoration".

[Dragoonkin]

I don't like EXP because it punishes slow-developing teams, because your players will start to Age long before they get skills.

[Asperon Thorn]

I cant understand why you dont understand the logic.

I think the problem lies with this:

More retiering, but quicker "restoration".

Doesn't seem to combat this:

A. Because it screws the game if to many players are to powerful.

And this:

Why is it difficult to retire a player ?

A. Because you need money to buy a new one.
B. Because the old one had Starplayer Points.

Doesn't include:

C. Because you have become attached to the player.

Asperon Thorn